About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZALCJHB 126
|
|
Liberty Group Properties (Pty) Ltd v Moodley and Others (JR576/2011) [2014] ZALCJHB 126 (16 April 2014)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
CASE
NO: JR 576/2011
NOT REPORTABLE
In
the matter between:
LIBERTY
GROUP PROPERTIES (PTY)
LTD
Applicant
and
M.
MOODLEY
First
Respondent
COMMISSIONER
ANISE SWANEPOEL N O
Second
Respondent
COMMISSION
FOR CONCILIATION
MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION
Third
Respondent
Heard
:
16 April 2014:
Delivered:
16 April 2014
In
Chambers: Application for leave to appeal. Granted
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
GUSH
J
[1]
This
is an application for leave to appeal against the judgement of the
Honourable Acting Judge Ntsaba-Letele handed down on 29
November
2013.
[2]
The
applicant filed its application for leave to appeal timeously on 13
December 2013. On 2 January 2014 the first respondent filed
its
submissions opposing the applicant’s application for leave to
appeal.
[3]
On
20 of February 2014 the applicant filed further submissions in
respect of the application for leave to appeal and on 26 February
2014 the applicant filed an application for condonation for the late
filing of these submissions.
[4]
On
11 March 2014 the first respondent filed an affidavit opposing the
applicant’s application for condonation for the late
filing of
the submissions filed by the applicant.
[5]
14
March 2014 filed an affidavit replying to the respondent’s
affidavit opposing the application for leave to appeal and the
application for condonation.
[6]
I
have considered the applicants grounds upon which it relies respect
of the application for condonation and the respondent’s
opposition thereto. I am not satisfied that the applicant application
for condonation for the late filing of its further submissions
has
any merit. The grounds upon which the applicant relies do not satisfy
even the most lenient scrutiny.
[7]
In
the circumstances therefore the applicants application for
condonation for the late filing of its further submissions dismissed.
[8]
This
however is not the end of the matter. When the applicant filed,
timeously, its application, the applicant set out therein,
in some
detail, the grounds upon which it relies in seeking leave to appeal.
These grounds to all intents and purposes substantially
constitute
the submissions required of an applicant by the Act, Rules and
Practice Manual and I am accordingly that the applicant
has
sufficiently complied with section 166 of the Labour Relations Act,
read with rule 30 and in particular rule 30 (3A) and paragraph
15 of
the Labour Court Practice Manual.
[9]
There
was sufficient particularity in the grounds upon which the
applicant’s application for leave to appeal is based to have
allowed the first respondent file in reply thereto substantive and
detailed "submissions on leave to appeal".
[10]
I
have in the circumstances taken into account and carefully considered
the applicants application for leave to appeal and the grounds
upon
which it seeks such leave and the first respondents opposing
answering submissions.
[11]
Having
done so, I am satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect that a
different court might come to a different conclusion in
this matter.
[12]
I
therefore make the following order:
a.
The applicants application for leave to
appeal is granted;
b.
There is no order as to costs.
_
______________________
D H Gush
Judge
of the labour Court of South Africa